Nope.

Luther advocated the following to be cut:

- James
- Hebrews
- Letters of John
- Revelation

Redstone said:

---

Nope.

Luther advocated the following to be cut:

- James
- Hebrews
- Letters of John
- Revelation

---

Source?

He had critiques on them. But no where do I know where he advocated them to be cut.

Because if he advocated them to be cut, why did he include them in his Bible Translations? Why does he have sermons based on all off them?

He used plenty of derogatory language against the books - in sermons, by account of first-hand testimony, and in well-known works of his time, such as the Basic Theology series - probably the most famous phrase being that James is a "straw-epistle."

Jude too, by the way.

Second, to more directly address your question:

- his followers rejected his advice and advocacy
- Luther took plenty of other actions to denigrate these books - review the controversies of the early English translations, such as Tyndale

Redstone said:

---

He used plenty of derogatory language against the books - in sermons, by account of first-hand testimony, and in well-known works of his time, such as the Basic Theology series - probably the most famous phrase being that James is a "straw-epistle."

Jude too, by the way.

Second, to more directly address your question:

- his followers rejected his advice and advocacy
- Luther took plenty of other actions to denigrate these books - review the controversies of the early English translations, such as Tyndale

---

He has critiques. I wouldn't go so far as to call them derogatory, but that is a subjective term so to each his own.

However, I find nothing showing he advocated for them to be "cut" from the Bible, as you mentioned two posts above. If that were so, why would they be included in the Bible he translated to German and published? A critique is not the same thing as advocating for them to be eliminated or cut, as you have claimed in two different posts.

Personally, I do not find the following critique of Revelation derogatory, but rather a scholarly critique, but again, I guess each person would have a different definition of the term.

Quote:

---

About this book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own ideas, and would bind no man to my opinion or judgment; I say what I feel. I miss more than one thing in this book, and this makes me hold it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic. First and foremost, the Apostles do not deal with visions, but prophesy in clear, plain words, as do Peter and Paul, and Christ in the Gospel. For it befits the apostolic office to speak of Christ and His deeds without figures and visions; but there is no prophet in the Old Testament, to say nothing of the New, who deals so out and out with visions and figures. And so I think of it almost as I do of the Fourth Book of Esdras, and can nohow detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.

Moreover, he seems to me to be going much too far when he commends his own book so highly, more than any of the other sacred books do, though they are much more important, and threatens that if anyone takes away anything from it, God will deal likewise with him. Again, they are to be blessed who keep what is written therein; and yet no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it. It is just the same as if we had it not, and there are many far better books for us to keep. Many of the fathers, too, rejected this book of old, though St. Jerome, to be sure, praises it highly and says that it is above all praise and that there are as many mysteries in it as words; though he cannot prove this at all, and his praise is, at many points, too mild.

Finally, let everyone think of it as his own spirit gives him to think. My spirit cannot fit itself into this book. There is one sufficient reason for me not to think highly of it,-Christ is not taught or known in it; but to teach Christ is the thing which an apostle is bound, above all else, to do, as He says in Acts 1:8, "Ye shall be my witnesses." Therefore I stick to the books which give me Christ, clearly and purely.

---

His early followers pretty clearly understand some books to be "lower" than the others - James foremost, given Luther's opinion of salvation. And it was those followers, Tyndale for our language first, who came to disagree with him on Biblical "lowering."

You can fairly suggest I used "cut" too loosely, but the historical context is fair IMO.

Don't forget, as well, his false insertions of "alone" - anyone reading this should read a high-profile Catholic / Orthodox critique (such as New Advent), and consider this "side." My characterizations are not unreasonable.

The Catholic Church of Great Britain has announced their intention not to follow Pope Francis's lead on this.

Y'all, just stick with the Latin. Problem solved.

PATER NOSTER, qui es in caelis, sanctificetur nomen tuum. Adveniat regnum tuum. Fiat voluntas tua, sicut in caelo et in terra. Panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie, et dimitte nobis debita nostra sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris. Et ne nos inducas in tentationem, sed libera nos a malo. Amen.

It seems you're just throwing crap against the wall and hoping something sticks.

I'm sure you're also aware that Eusebius also noted that some Epistles were considered to be "antilegomena" or "spoken against."

So while Luther certainly initially had issues with James, in the end he did not think it was wise to remove anything in the new version of the Bible. He kept them all in and moved them to a "General Epistles" section of the Bible since in a lot of cases, even their authorship was in question.

But I would point out that James specifically is pointed out in many of the key documents that make up the Book of Concord. Luther specifically references it in the Large Catechism.

My sentiment that he wanted to remove between 4 and 7 books, depending upon how his (many) opinions were viewed at a particular time (he late in life softened his derision of James) is well attested to by his contemporaries - and, most important, by his own paper trail.

Sample - from this major religious leader with huge influence and many followers -
"cannot include him among the chief books"

Now, the larger context of this phrase has some praise for James. Fair enough. But go ahead and look at his passages of derision for James and the other half dozen. It's not exactly a surprise that so many of his initial followers rejected Luther's New Testament translation work, is it?

His New Testament translation into German had a large impact on the entire german language. So to say it was rejected is not a true statement.

But if you're argument is that he made translation choices others wouldn't. Well we can say that about every translator.

My point has been very specific:
Luther spoke and wrote very despairingly, for decades, about 7 books, due to his theological commitments. Sometimes he backtracked. However, it is fair to state he wanted 4 to 7 books not in the canon. Next, and especially after his death, most of his followers ignored in practice these plainly stated opinions of Luther.

Yes..Your point appears to be that you're upset that Luther spoke bluntly about books that historically had been questioned, yet still quoted in his most important works.

So in other words, a non-issue.

Redstone said:

---

My sentiment that he wanted to remove between 4 and 7 books,

---

Where exactly did he say he wanted them removed? You keep making these claims yet provide nothing attributing such to Luther. Again, he included them in his translations...he preached on them in sermons...he wrote prefaces to them. Proof seems to indicate this claim of yours if inherently false.

Quote:

---

However, it is fair to state he wanted 4 to 7 books not in the canon.

---

Actually, it's not fair to make such a claim since you have offered up absolutely no proof that he wanted them removed. Provide me actual quotes of Luther saying these should be removed from the Bible and I will relent. But you have not provided that.

Look, I don't agree with Luther on everything, and there are many devout LCMS pastors who will openly state they don't agree with certain interpretations and assumptions Luther made in many of his prefaces and studies. That's because Luther is simply a pastor and a theologian and not one of the actual writers of scripture. He's a flawed individual just like the rest of us. So don't take my opposition to your posts as being someone who thinks Luther was 100% correct on everything or was above question. He wasn't. By no means.

But I can't let untruths go unchallenged. He did not advocate these books be removed. He didn't even remove the apocrypha...others that came after him removed it. He just moved it.

Hebrews, James, Revelation, the epistles of John...these are all books worthy of being called scripture and studying. No Lutheran pastor would claim otherwise, including the first Lutheran pastor.

Well this was an awkward double-post via quoting my post. Sorry about that.

There are some semantics here, but the Catholic and Orthodox arguments that he wanted the 7 removed from the Canon is a fair charge. Plenty of scholarship from the Apostolic Church on this, full of quotes from Luther, and from the arguments his followers had because of his actions.

- The editors of Luther's Works had plenty of internal turmoil about this. One edition stated explicitly: "These books are not held equal to the Scriptures."

Now, if such a statement is bracketed with equivocation, that they still have some spiritual value, what are readers supposed to think? That the books are canonical? Sometimes they were conveyed as such, sometimes not. Follows the pattern of division after division, like how the Seventh Day Adventists used to be Methodists, used to be Anglicans...

- Sometimes, The Protestant Bible Societies, mostly from England, cut up the canon, and sometimes they didn't. Who was a very main authority on this question? Luther - who himself waxed and waned, depending upon his moods and intensity of theological commitment.

- By one action alone, in the context of his time, my statements are accurate. Luther wanted books cut by the MAJOR action of moving to appendix. This was a big deal. Context of time and place....

Redstone said:

---

There are some semantics here, but the Catholic and Orthodox arguments that he wanted the 7 removed from the Canon is a fair charge. Plenty of scholarship from the Apostolic Church on this, full of quotes from Luther, and from the arguments his followers had because of his actions.

- The editors of Luther's Works had plenty of internal turmoil about this. One edition stated explicitly: "These books are not held equal to the Scriptures."

Now, if such a statement is bracketed with equivocation, that they still have some spiritual value, what are readers supposed to think? That the books are canonical? Sometimes they were conveyed as such, sometimes not. Follows the pattern of division after division, like how the Seventh Day Adventists used to be Methodists, used to be Anglicans...

- Sometimes, The Protestant Bible Societies, mostly from England, cut up the canon, and sometimes they didn't. Who was a very main authority on this question? Luther - who himself waxed and waned, depending upon his moods and intensity of theological commitment.

- By one action alone, in the context of his time, my statements are accurate. Luther wanted books cut by the MAJOR action of moving to appendix. This was a big deal. Context of time and place....

---

There aren't semantics. You cannot produce ONE quote from Luther advocating that these books be cut. ONE.

You dismiss the fact that he included these books in his Bible translations.

You dismiss the fact that he wrote prefaces to most of these books and preached on them.

You attribute the actions of others to Luther...groups that may have resulted from the Reformation but who weren't aligned with Luther (i.e. the Protestant Bible Studies from England, Calvinists, Anabaptists, Zwingli's followers). It would be well with you to understand not every offshoot of the Reformation followed Luther's teachings nor agreed with Luther.

You keep repeating a narrative that you have failed to provide any PROOF that is true. Until you can produce an actual quote from Luther himself stating these books should not be in the Bible, you cannot continue with this false narrative that he wanted them cut, removed, etc.

This isn't rocket science.

Well, this certainly isn't rocket science:

The Bible removed from its context (The Apostolic Church) can be and often is weaponized as a means of division and rancor. Therefore, best to read the Scripture (which is NOT the word of God; Jesus the Logos is) in its context -
The Church came first, and its product over 3 centuries of debate in Church councils, the Bible, should be read in its light. It was wrong of Luther to act on the belief that he knew better.

I think you're asking for something that's a little bit disingenuous.

Luther never said, to my knowlege, "James shouldn't be in the bible" or even "James is not scripture."

But part of this is that, at the time the Bible as a monolithic, settled entity didn't really exist. It wasn't part of our collective conscious yet, where today even rearranging the book order would be tantamount to sacrilege.

We can have a discussion about what Luther did, and the subtle impact of that, which is question the canonicity of certain books. For Luther, the question of the canon was an open one. This is a hard stopping point right here - whatever conclusion he may have come to, this is an astounding challenge to the Christian faith. Some books were questioned in antiquity, yes, both for value and authorship. But the question of the canon had been closed for a thousand years, accepted and ratified by unanimous use and assent east and west across all of Christendom. Yes, it was only closed de jure at Trent; but like most things, the de jure doctrinal statement only comes when the de facto stance is challenged. It doesn't matter how haltingly or piously or humbly you phrase the challenge - it is still a grave challenge.

He challenged the existing principle of antiquity and apostolicity as being the arbiters of the canon by adding to it a personal criterion of doctrinal worth. Suddenly now some scriptures are more important than others, some are "chief books" and others are not, some are useful and others are not, some are on one level, others lower. This in and of itself is a novelty, even if the criterion used is one of Christocentric focus or admirable piety. I have never seen any church Father give any kind of weight or pit scripture against scripture in terms of value, or talk about the epistle of St James as contradictory to scripture or St Paul, or speaking of the Revelation, that it is just the same as if we had it or not.

Anyway, probably the worst quote you can summon up from Luther about a canonical book is not James, but Esther, where he says he wishes it had never been given to the Church, that it has heathen unnaturalities, and that it deserves to be regarded as noncanonical. Ironically, he included it in the canon seemingly because the Jewish canon included it... a kind of submission to tradition he gave the Jewish synodial tradition while denying to the Apostolic Church.

Quote:

---

a kind of submission to tradition he gave the Jewish synodial tradition while denying to the Apostolic Church.

---

Uncharitable at best.

The comment came as an aside about Ecclesiasticus.

Quote:

---

Although I could rightly reject [Ecclesiastcius], for the time being I accept it so as not to waste time by getting involved in a dispute about the books received in the Hebrew canon. For you [Erasmus] poke more than a little sarcastic fun at this when you compare Proverbs and The Song of Solomon...with the two books of Esdras, Judith, the story of Susanna and the Dragon, and Esther (which despite their [Hebrew] inclusion of it in the canon deserves more than all the rest in my judgment to be regarded as noncanonical).

---

He views the Hebrew canon as closed, presumably because of synodial decree at Jamnia, but doesn't give a similar weight to the synodial decrees of the Church (for example, at Carthage).

Shrug.

k2aggie07 said:

---

I think you're asking for something that's a little bit disingenuous.

---

The only thing I have asked for is Redstone to produce any quote from Luther to prove Redstone's assertions in his posts here. That is all.

Redstone said the following (his actual words in different posts in this thread):

Quote:

---

and also the (several) books that Luther and some early Reformation figures wanted to banish.

---

Quote:

---

Luther advocated the following to be cut:

- James
- Hebrews
- Letters of John
- Revelation

---

Quote:

---

However, it is fair to state he wanted 4 to 7 books not in the canon.

---

However, he has failed to provide a single quote from Luther stating/confirming any of the above assertions.

For all of the other debates on Luther's writings we can get into, and whether or not the Latin Volgate was properly translated from the Greek by Jerome in the first place, that was not the point of any of my posts.

All I was trying to do was correct the misinformation being propagated by those quotes above. There has not been one quote provide here attributing any of the above accusations to Luther. What we do have is the inclusion of all of these books in Luther's bible translations, which seems to refute the above said accusations.

You're both right. Redstone is using the term canon, and you're talking about the Bible. You're missing the concept of canonicity. Let's examine Luther's view of canonicity to demonstrate the point.

Quote:

---

I have learned to ascribe the honor of infallibility only to those books that are accepted as canonical. I am profoundly convinced that none of these writers has erred. All other writers, however they may have distinguished themselves in holiness or in doctrine, I read in this way: I evaluate what they say, not on the basis that they themselves believe that a thing is true, but only insofar as they are able to convince me by the authority of the canonical books or by clear reason.

---

This is a very important thing to understand!

Luther freely questioned and even overtly challenged the canonicity of certain books. He introduced and supported criteria for canonicity that, were they used, would absolutely have resulted in a different canon. He doesn't have to say "James should not be in the bible" when he says that James was probably just written by a Jew who didn't know Christ anyway (if the Table Talk can be trusted -- who knows?). He explicitly said he doesn't value or use several books, and wished several weren't part of the canon.

It is obvious that Luther did not accept certain books as canonical, because he openly ascribes errors to them. James in particular. He does not use James as a canonical rule - he subjects James to Romans, which he certainly viewed as canonical. Does that make sense?

Thank you k2 that is a useful distinction.

It is very clear that Luther, a major figure viewed by many as an authority figure, considered 4 to 7 books (depending upon the time and his moods) to be non-canonical. Next, these many had debate after debate over what to do.

The Bible should never be so weaponized! The Spirit is not the author of confusion. The Bible should be read with the Apostolic Church. Who interprets? Them. Those protected by the Spirit, the authority of St. Peter, against whom nothing shall overcome (and yes Francis is a nauseating train wreck, we've had plenty of bad leaders).

Aggrad08 said:

---

Which version leads to the most touchdowns when said before the game

---

Wrong prayer...those are "Hail Marys"